wtf?
travo said:Texas' Lt. Governor says that grandparents aren't afraid to die to get the economy going again.
Have him sign a waver that states that in case he gets contaminated hospitals don't need to treat him. These meassurements aren't only there to protect the elderly, but to stop hospitals from getting flooded, which means people from all ages are at risk of losing out on health saving treatments.
He might be willing to face his own mortality, but people are age certainly are not. 
Good to know that the world leader in the historical eugenics movement still hasn't given up on the ideals of social darwinism! 
Is this the sort of tradition which, though never elucidated on by nostalgics, will undoubtedly make America great once again, just like it was in the past? When they were doing what that made them great? In this context, sterilising the weak and the poor and hoping to euthanise them at some point in the future or, alternatively, when they had, in some ways, more universal forms of healthcare than they do today? I don't suggest that America isn't necessarily great, or wasn't in the past, all I ask what made or makes it great?
I'd say that this sado-masochistic fantasy of sacrificing the weak isn't as cool as it was in the past, but outside of the miscegenation angle*, the argument was fundamentally an economic one back then, too. But it did at least have some form of window dressing!
*Which was also arguably all about cementing an underclass anyway; albeit on the basis of race, not contribution to GDP.
Foolz said:Good to know that the world leader in the historical eugenics movement still hasn't given up on the ideals of social darwinism!
Is this the sort of tradition which, though never elucidated on by nostalgics, will undoubtedly make America great once again, just like it was in the past? When they were doing what that made them great? In this context, sterilising the weak and the poor and hoping to euthanise them at some point in the future or, alternatively, when they had, in some ways, more universal forms of healthcare than they do today? I don't suggest that America isn't necessarily great, or wasn't in the past, all I ask what made or makes it great?
I'd say that this sado-masochistic fantasy of sacrificing the weak isn't as cool as it was in the past, but outside of the miscegenation angle*, the argument was fundamentally an economic one back then, too. But it did at least have some form of window dressing!
*Which was also arguably all about cementing an underclass anyway; albeit on the basis of race, not contribution to GDP.
I'd say 99.999% of US citizens would have no idea what you are talking about. I do, but they would not. We ("americans") do easily grasp the concept of the survival of the fittest, it's blantantly obvious to anyone that lives in the States, but I think if you sat down and explained Eugenics to the average "american" 97% of the citizens would be repulsed by the concept. We live by the precept of meritocracy, but we also have a disposition toward compassion. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/1950a_wgi2016_infographic_251016.pdf
Usually socialist countries like the UK have less compassion and genorosity as they expect the state to cover the financial needs of those who are in need.
Full report above. Worth checking out.
aspro said:I'd say 99.999% of US citizens would have no idea what you are talking about. I do, but they would not. We ("americans") do easily grasp the concept of the survival of the fittest, it's blantantly obvious to anyone that lives in the States, but I think if you sat down and explained Eugenics to the average "american" 97% of the citizens would be repulsed by the concept. We live by the precept of meritocracy, but we also have a disposition toward compassion. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/1950a_wgi2016_infographic_251016.pdf
Usually socialist countries like the UK have less compassion and genorosity as they expect the state to cover the financial needs of those who are in need.
Full report above. Worth checking out.
I did not mean to imply anything about Americans as a people beyond, broadly speaking, their historical ignorance (which I now also do not mean to imply is in anyway unique to Americans lol: nor even that I'm not tremendously ignorant of history!); which I in turn only have an issue with if someone is referencing history falsely, or unspecifically; that's lame: history is interesting, if you're going to reference something, why not learn about what you're referencing? Also, Australia was massively into the eugenics movement, too, but more so from the perspective of racial hygiene (not to suggest the weak weren't a target or its main victims); which didn't discourage sterilisation programs, nor, paradoxically, comparatively lenient inter-racial marriage laws! This paradox, like your own, would suggest that culture and morality don't really have much of an effect on political outcomes more than anything else.
As for the poms, they were massive arseholes when they were savages, massive arseholes when they were monarchists, massive arseholes when they were imperialists, massive arseholes when they were socialists, and massive arseholes now that they are a theocratic neoliberal monarchy! They're just massive arseholes, but you've gotta give them credit for their consistency.
robio said:
Precisely.
Foolz said:aspro said:I'd say 99.999% of US citizens would have no idea what you are talking about. I do, but they would not. We ("americans") do easily grasp the concept of the survival of the fittest, it's blantantly obvious to anyone that lives in the States, but I think if you sat down and explained Eugenics to the average "american" 97% of the citizens would be repulsed by the concept. We live by the precept of meritocracy, but we also have a disposition toward compassion. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/1950a_wgi2016_infographic_251016.pdf
Usually socialist countries like the UK have less compassion and genorosity as they expect the state to cover the financial needs of those who are in need.
Full report above. Worth checking out.
As for the poms, they were massive arseholes when they were savages, massive arseholes when they were monarchists, massive arseholes when they were imperialists, massive arseholes when they were socialists, and massive arseholes now that they are a theocratic neoliberal monarchy! They're just massive arseholes, but you've gotta give them credit for their consistency.
Precisely. I lolled about that. No offense GG, you are not normal pom you are a wonderful person, generous and intriguing and many wonderful people are from the UK, but Foolz has a point, keeping in mind our exposure to poms are defectors that moved to the antipodenes.
Foolz said:aspro said:I'd say 99.999% of US citizens would have no idea what you are talking about. I do, but they would not. We ("americans") do easily grasp the concept of the survival of the fittest, it's blantantly obvious to anyone that lives in the States, but I think if you sat down and explained Eugenics to the average "american" 97% of the citizens would be repulsed by the concept. We live by the precept of meritocracy, but we also have a disposition toward compassion. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/1950a_wgi2016_infographic_251016.pdf
Usually socialist countries like the UK have less compassion and genorosity as they expect the state to cover the financial needs of those who are in need.
Full report above. Worth checking out.
I did not mean to imply anything about Americans as a people beyond, broadly speaking, their historical ignorance (which I now also do not mean to imply is in anyway unique to Americans lol: nor even that I'm not tremendously ignorant of history!); which I in turn only have an issue with if someone is referencing history falsely, or unspecifically; that's lame: history is interesting, if you're going to reference something, why not learn about what you're referencing?
huh? I welcome challenges, I just cannot follow that. Your mind races.
aspro said:huh? I welcome challenges, I just cannot follow that. Your mind races.
Uh, I think I meant to say that my post wasn't meant to make any generalisations about Americans, just merely that statements from American politicians in a party with the slogan Make America Great Again calling for eugenics policies shouldn't really come as a surprise (but it also shouldn't come as a surprise if wanted to turn veterans into welfare queens!); and that I'm glad those who make them are open enough to actually take the slogan for what it's worth and reference (even if only out of repeating it in ignorance) something from American history! The dude quoted was a Republican if I remember correctly and the national Republic platform is based on nostalgia based on my very little exposure to it. Amusingly, AOC would also be a valid MAGA candidate with her green new deal shtick, but most MAGA rhetoric that I've seen is utterly devoid of historical reference and judging by my own experience in engaging with MA(ustralia)GA graffiti, when one suggests historical reference points, one gets censored for it! Weird, as that sort of slogan is ostensibly all about history! Thus why I referred to nostalgics rather than Americans.
Meritocracy is essentially the politically correct term for social darwinism, though, so maybe my post would be a valid generalisation, after all? An interesting addition to this would be that compassion isn't necessarily a good, or bad, thing (which I was rather awkwardly aluding to in the rest of my post). As well as relieving the economy of the burden of the weak, sterilising and/or killing them is actually a compassionate action as they live a life of pointless misery, anyway. According to eugenicists, that is.
My apologies, as I feel like this post is even more confusing than the other one. 
Last thing, the origin of the term meritocracy is pretty funny given its current nearly universally positive usage; another thing we can blame the poms for:
*"The word was adopted into the English language with none of the negative connotations that Young intended it to have and was embraced by supporters of the philosophy. Young expressed his disappointment in the embrace of this word and philosophy by the Labour Party under Tony Blair in the Guardian in an article in 2001, where he states:
It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." - Wikipedia.
As someone who only casually follows politics I'd just like to add in that MAGA, while a hystorical reference, in its current form carries absolutely no hystorical meaning. It has been stolen from the cabinets of history only to appeal to a misplaced feeling of nostalgia, weltschmerz even, and has no value beyond being a reactionary slogan. America has never been more powerfull than it is today, or at least would be if Trump didn't shy away from taking any kind of leadership role on the international stage.
On the topic of eugenics, you should google Hadamar. I recently read an article about it. It was one of many 'hospitals' for the mentally of physically challenged, where Germany sterilized and even just plain murdered their own citizens prior to the war. It was also the direct predecessor of the endlosung camps during the war, with many of the same technologies introduced there. That such places existed is downright bone chilling.
SupremeAC said:As someone who only casually follows politics I'd just like to add in that MAGA, while a hystorical reference, in its current form carries absolutely no hystorical meaning. It has been stolen from the cabinets of history only to appeal to a misplaced feeling of nostalgia, weltschmerz even, and has no value beyond being a reactionary slogan. America has never been more powerfull than it is today, or at least would be if Trump didn't shy away from taking any kind of leadership role on the international stage.
On the topic of eugenics, you should google Hadamar. I recently read an article about it. It was one of many 'hospitals' for the mentally of physically challenged, where Germany sterilized and even just plain murdered their own citizens prior to the war. It was also the direct predecessor of the endlosung camps during the war, with many of the same technologies introduced there. That such places existed is downright bone chilling.
No doubt, though America First is a direct historical reference; but given any sort of scrutiny turns out to be as pretentious and vacuous as MAGA.
The gas vans are also a frightening part of the pre-war euthanasia program. I love their depiction in The Tin Drum as the gas man visiting as if to repair stoves and plumbing lol; though maybe it was just meant to be a general reference, and I read too much into it. The most interesting part of Hadamar is that protests actually resulted in its operations being suspended, and they could only resume once they'd figured out how to make them less noticable to the public. That's the second craziest protest in Nazi Germany, behind the protest of German wives with Jewish husbands who actually managed to have their Jewish husbands returned to them from concentration camps!
Foolz said:Meritocracy is essentially the politically correct term for social darwinism, though, so maybe my post would be a valid generalisation, after all? An interesting addition to this would be that compassion isn't necessarily a good, or bad, thing (which I was rather awkwardly aluding to in the rest of my post). As well as relieving the economy of the burden of the weak, sterilising and/or killing them is actually a compassionate action as they live a life of pointless misery, anyway. According to eugenicists, that is.
*"The word was adopted into the English language with none of the negative connotations that Young intended it to have and was embraced by supporters of the philosophy. Young expressed his disappointment in the embrace of this word and philosophy by the Labour Party under Tony Blair in the Guardian in an article in 2001, where he states:
It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." - Wikipedia.
I would suggest that meritocracy in the context I used it is not social darwinism, but economic darwinism. If you prove effective, you make more money. But it is not limited to the economy but all aspects of life, including sports, romance and friendship. You show merit, you advance.
aspro said:I would suggest that meritocracy in the context I used it is not social darwinism, but economic darwinism. If you prove effective, you make more money. But it is not limited to the economy but all aspects of life, including sports, romance and friendship. You show merit, you advance.
So it's economic darwinism...but it also extends to sports, romance and friendship; indeed, all aspects of life? 
I'm sorry, but I find the concept of economic meritocracy to be a hollow one. It is an illusion sold by those in power to keep the unwashed masses from their doorstep. Succes is as much the result of external parameters you yourself have no say in and a good wollop of luck as it is of one self's merit. But as long as you can convince most people that their wellfare depends on their own efforts, they won't rattle the system for being unfair, they'll look at themselves when they fail.
Question for our USA representatives:
Do news outlets factcheck everything Trump states? I woke up to the news that Trump is now pointing his finger at the WHO for failing in an attempt to draw attention from his own underestimting of the situation. Any article published on the matter here will also point out that Trump dismissed the virus weeks or even months after the WHO sent out a global warning. Are Americans seeing the facts, or are news outlets only reporting on what he's saying?
CNN does a pretty good job of calling out his bullshit, daily now. Only problem is it's a constant stream of lies. He's also painted the picture that most media is fake news and an enemy of the people. It's crazy times here when your president is more concerned about his tv ratings rather than saving lives. He takes no responsibility and claims his administration is doing a great job.
travo said:CNN does a pretty good job of calling out his bullshit, daily now. Only problem is it's a constant stream of lies. He's also painted the picture that most media is fake news and an enemy of the people. It's crazy times here when your president is more concerned about his tv ratings rather than saving lives. He takes no responsibility and claims his administration is doing a great job.
I'm afraid to ask, but are people in general still putting up with this in these times?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-suggests-he-other-seniors-willing-n1167341
Texas' Lt. Governor says that grandparents aren't afraid to die to get the economy going again.